Invisible… with Liberty & Justice for all
If a doctor were to prescribe the same medicine to each of her patients, regardless of their respective ailments, we could conclude that her methods were – at best – imprecise. If she ignored the work of curing diseases (research, prevention – etc.) and rather simply prescribed medicines which only masked certain symptoms, after a short period of time she would have run out of patients. In this light, it may be of some benefit to engage in an examination of modern warfare as a “medicine” which has been prescribed as a means to cure violent forms of extremism. Immediately, we can see that warfare has only temporarily reduced the symptoms of extremism if it has reduced them at all. Diplomacy has been applied elsewhere. Economic sanctions, which rarely do more than punish the innocent, have also been levied. And yet, while these alternative strategies are being implemented – or prescribed – the salve of drone warfare and missile “defense” is generously applied in other regions. Thus, we treat a symptom of the disease while by and large ignoring the disease itself. This “prescription”, if you will, has arguably become just as deadly – if not deadlier – than the disease. History teaches us unequivocally; a people will not be bombed into freedom – not even with precision guided munitions.
Who writes the prescriptions?
The idea that Democracy is the medium upon which is written the language of Freedom is inconsistent with the lessons of history. In a very real and modern sense, the freedom we express in our culture, which is supposedly derived from the “will of the majority”, has come about through the willing degradation and exploitation of others. Global economic policies which increase the profits of some while reducing and eliminating the profits of others facilitate the turning of a blind eye to the nameless families living in starvation around the world. Consequently, those around the corner become invisible as well. In this light, the bliss of ignorance is chilling – and truly terrifying.
A boy disconsolate, embittered by rejection and the self imposed distance of family and peers, seeks solace in the fanatical arms of martyrdom. He puts on the whole armor of the neo-extremist warrior. On his face, a beautiful face that will shine out across a billion web browsers and television screens in some future time whether he lives or succeeds; the patent sheen of fearlessness. And tucked away within the lining of his hand-sewn underwear, hidden from the theatre of modern security, an explosive powder – with which he hopes to bring down the giant. And he wins the Battle of Christmas Day – no matter the outcome. He has won because the greatest weapon of the extremist is not a civilian airliner turned IED. It is not a truck packed with 300 kilos of PETN. It is the media – a democratically licensed and controlled entity.
But who is Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab fighting? And – what if the answer is simply that it is you and I; our faces on the billboards and television screens he sees. What if Umar’s enemy is so well hidden among us – so thoroughly integrated in our day-to-day living, that we have failed to identify him. When Umar looks at your picture on someone’s Facebook page, he doesn’t see you. He sees him – the enemy. To Umar, then, you have become invisible.
Hamza Yusuf
Bailout 101
2,500 years ago, most modern scholars believe a Chinese general named Sun Tzu wrote what is usually referred to as The Art of War. In it, the general writes:
“Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished.
On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people’s substance to be drained away.
When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions.
With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their income will be dissipated;while government expenses for broken chariots, worn-out horses, breast-plates and helmets, bows and arrows, spears and shields, protective mantles, draught-oxen and heavy wagons, will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue.”
Perhaps another trillion-or-so American taxpayer dollars will, once and for all,
prove this old fool wrong.
The American Dream
On April 4, 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King delivered a speech at Riverside Church in New York City in which he termed America “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” He was assassinated one year later, to the day, in Memphis, Tennessee. With or without the words of Dr. King – or the knowledge of his sacrifice – America is known the world over as an imperialistic force of greed and destruction. This is undeniable. And yet we seek to cover our failings with the rhetoric of “Democracy” and humanitarian aid which represents mere fractions of the dollars we spend on weapons of mass destruction. It would seem that American foreign policy is one of deception and violence. Whatever good we do is quickly undone by blatant atrocities.
Our children’s children cannot afford the consequences of our actions. And sadly, an answer or an alternative course of action is not easy to see. In fact, no course of action has been charted. There is no clear solution. Those who suggest “Change” are labeled untrustworthy, untested, and unfit to lead. This leads us to the painful fact that our votes will be courted this November by promises to bring troops home – and simultaneously protect America. The coming election, having been reduced to nonsensical debates (between elites only) over whether or not to bring troops home and how to “fix” the American economy, cannot yield something new. This talk – and these actions – cannot bring about change. We will reap what we have sown.
Nationalism which hides its violence behind tax dollars is devastatingly expensive. The costs are not merely monetary. The numbers, sadly enough, can never account for lives – future losses – and complete dedication to the defeat of all that America stands for. And even though it would be convenient to claim ignorance, each of us is keenly aware of the facts. And yet we choose to live in a cloud of denial: The cozy haze of consumption. The American Dream.
The alarm bells are ringing. Somewhere over the course of our history, Democracy was replaced by Capitalism. Under no circumstances, whatsoever, could any thinking American call our nation a Democracy. The same holds true for the Republic that once operated in Washington. The Federal Government no longer serves consumers in a capitalist system. It consumes them.
War on the Economy
Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2001, and Linda Bilmes, a Harvard budget expert, published reports showing that the Iraq war costs would exceed $1 Trillion in 2006. They were optimistic. Stiglitz published revisions last month, raising the bill to $3 Trillion. And he calls it a “conservative estimate.”
The President’s budget office estimated, publicly, at the beginning of the Iraq war, that the cost to Americans would be roughly $60 Billion. Shortly thereafter, White House Economic Advisor, Lawrence Lindsey, was fired after suggesting that the war could cost upwards of $200 Billion.
The human and financial costs incurred by the current administration’s “War on Terror” continue to rise. The helplessness of our elected officials as gas prices climb to $4 a gallon becomes no easier to digest. Unbelievably disastrous economic policies are rapidly disappearing into the bland political reduction of three campaigns for the presidency, each with the stomach-turning propensity for boiling the whole pot down to the single most important “issue” in their respective campaigns.
And are we yet led to war against our own economy?
_______________________________________________________________________
Above is what I sent to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.
What they actually printed (right) is obviously not what I sent.
Between the first and second paragraphs, I count the word “they” used three times – in as many sentences.
That’s a pretty ugly use of the 3rd person plural pronoun.
Below is a longer version of the same
_______________________________________________________________________
In January, 2006, reports were published by Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2001, and Linda Bilmes, a Harvard budget expert, which stated that the cost of the Iraq war would well exceed $1 Trillion. They were optimistic, as it turns out. A similar report published last month puts the new numbers at $3 Trillion. And Stiglitz calls this a “conservative estimate.”
I can remember having said – and having heard my own son – when confronted with the notion that we could not simply purchase whatever we’d like, say: “But you can just write a check for it, Dad. You still have checks!” It was not terribly difficult to explain, albeit several times, to my son that we can’t write a check for $1000 when we have $500 in the bank. Ok. I lied. It was really hard. “That’s what credit cards are for, Dad.”
The noteworthy National Priorities Project counts out the “Cost of War” in real time format. ($507.5 Billion at the time of this writing) But these numbers only reflect up-to- the-minute costs. It’s like this: If I purchase a home and suffer under the delusion that the cost of the home is nothing more than my $50,000 down payment, can I possibly manage a budget which includes monthly payments, repairs and taxes? Not on your life.
We are all familiar with the dangers of the “got checks – got money” teenage economic theory. We want something new, something better – even though saving money for more important things is a better choice. And, too often, our fathers write the check because we “help” by rationalizing the costs with propaganda. But how could we possibly understand, or even begin to calculate the real costs of war? And so, when bombarded on a regular basis with the names and faces of our enemies, we yield.
The Bush Administration’s budget office estimated, publicly, at the beginning of the Iraq war, that the cost to Americans would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $60 Billion. Wasn’t White House Economic Advisor, Lawrence Lindsey, fired for suggesting that the war could cost upwards of $200 Billion. Ooops. So now it is quite clear. Anyone who would choose to deny that George W. Bush and his father’s friends knew exactly what they were doing, and chose to cover it by misleading the American people, is truly a poor student of history – and certainly of politics.
We may actually begin to bring troops home, however slowly, but the human and financial costs incurred by the Bush Administration’s “War on Terror” continue to rise. Nor is it easy to overlook the helplessness of our elected officials as gas prices climb to $4 a gallon. But these unbelievably disastrous economic policies have almost completely disappeared in the bland reduction of political campaigns which have a propensity of boiling all things down to the single most important “issue” in their respective campaigns for the presidency: The Economy.
How ridiculously selfish.